It is proposed to take No. 1, Competition (Amendment) Bill 2005[Seanad]— Second Stage; No. 18a, statements to Dáil Éireann by the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, regarding the Vote for the Health Service Executive — it should read 2005-06 — to be taken——
Order of Business.
Another mistake.
No, it is not another mistake, it is a typing issue. The statements are to be taken at 2.40 p.m today and the order shall not resume thereafter.
It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the proceedings on No. 18a shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 50 minutes and the following arrangements shall apply: (i) subject to (ii), the statements shall be confined to the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children and to the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and the Technical Group, who shall be called upon in that order, and shall not exceed ten minutes in each case; (ii) Members may share time; and (iii) immediately following the statements, the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children shall take questions for a period not exceeding ten minutes. Private Members’ business shall be No. 45, motion re services directive, resumed, to be taken immediately after the Order of Business and to conclude after 90 minutes.
There is one proposal to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 18a agreed to?
The leopard has not changed its spots and what happened yesterday is typical of this Government. Whether that relates to leaking tunnels, rails coming apart or money going astray, it is all small change in the Government's eyes. With regard to the proposed statements, why did the Tánaiste not come into the House yesterday to make a statement? We are being asked to approve retrospectively the Appropriation Bill 2005, which the House passed but on which consent was not given for this practice.
After nine years of these parties in Government, we still do not know how many people work in the health service, how much they are paid or how money is spent. The Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children promised that when the Health Service Executive was set up, it would result in a bright new world of effective accountability of the use of public money in the health services. However, we now find the HSE has driven a coach and four through these practices.
During last November and December, the Tánaiste will recall that I asked her whether she was aware of the difficulties the former health boards were having in meeting payments to suppliers and in regard to their cash flow. She denied knowledge of the HSE having such difficulties. I have been told that in December the shackles were taken off by the HSE and substantial amounts were paid into particular accounts for activities in which former health boards were involved. The Tánaiste must answer questions on this.
Prior to the statements being taken later, is she satisfied that financial controls and arrangements within the HSE are effective? Does the decision to make the chief executive officer the Accounting Officer need to be revisited? What is the breakdown between pay and non-pay items in the HSE? Finally, and most importantly, when did the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children and the Government become aware of the practice of the HSE using capital funding for current purposes? We need to know that now.
It would appear the Government is determined to start the new year the way it finished the old one. There was a great deal of hope that the mismanagement, incompetence, waste and unwillingness to answer questions of last year would have gone out with the calendar year but we have begun on the same note this year. The Minister for Finance admitted he knew about this on 17 January, yet a schedule of business circulated to the House last week contained no reference to it. An amended schedule of business was circulated at midday yesterday and it contained no reference to it. At 4.28 p.m. yesterday the Minister for Finance by fax issued a statement with minimal information, 20 minutes before the matter was to be raised in the House.
I have known the Minister for a long time and I would never have previously accused him of political cowardice and sleight of hand but that was what was engaged in yesterday, including a misuse of the Standing Order that permits personal statements in the House. I ask the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's esteemed advisers in front to put up Standing Order 43 in front of him. It provides for a personal statement "that shall be brief, non-argumentative and strictly personal and shall not be such as would give cause to further debate or explanation". There was nothing personal about the statement yesterday; it was of the most fundamental political and public importance.
This error would not be made by a first-year accountancy student. Such a student who could not distinguish between capital and current would not be allowed to continue his or her course. It appears nobody on the Government Front Bench read a bank statement. We had an explanation this morning that defied belief from somebody describing himself as chief finance officer of the HSE. One did not know whether the money was missing; the implication was he would find it again before St. Patrick's Day. I do not know the genealogy of the man in question but he should be put in control of the national finances because he does not seem to think the money is missing and, if it is, he will find it.
It is not acceptable that the personal statement provision should be used in this fashion by the Minister for Finance to sneak in on an unsuspecting House and confess to this scale of cock-up by the Department of Health and Children, the HSE and the Tánaiste, who is responsible as the political head of that Department. The time provided for the matter put to the House of ten minutes for party leaders to make a contribution and ten minutes for the combined Opposition to put questions to the Tánaiste is entirely inadequate. She is perfectly capable of giving one reply that will take up the ten minutes. It is not a fair way to ventilate a subject such as this. The taxpayer will be appalled to learn the Government parties have embarked on a new year in which they intend to continue waste, lose and mismanage public money.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
More time is needed for these statements than has been allocated to them. Whatever about the Minister for Finance coming into the House in a surprise, lightning strike to tell us about the demise of €56 million, the time allocated equates to approximately €1 million per minute to explain the loss of this money. That may seem like small change to some people but, for example, hospital staff in St. Ita's Hospital, Portrane, County Dublin, must contend with one hand basin for 24 patients in the male admissions unit. These staff are instructed to be hygienic and to wash themselves to prevent the spread of MRSA. That highlights what this money could have been and should have been used for and more than 50 minutes is needed for the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children to explain what happened.
The HSE was established amid a great fanfare to introduce greater control and accountability and less duplication of work. However, when cock-ups occur now, they are massive as a result of that change. A major investigation is needed, therefore, to get to the bottom of this because this system was not meant to go wrong in this manner. If it is going wrong, we need much more than 50 minutes to find out about it and to get to the bottom of it.
The issue is the inadequate time to address the seriousness of what is involved. It draws into question the approach of the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, the procedures adopted by the HSE and the operation and management of the health services. This is against the backdrop of a depletion of services at critical hospital sites throughout the country, with communities totally disaffected from the governance and delivery of health care. Here we have the further example of not only the inefficiency but, as I have described, the shambolic approach of those entrusted to oversee and ensure oversight of health care delivery.
Both the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children and the Minister for Finance should come before the House in a more substantive way than the proposal for the Tánaiste to take a ten-minute question and answer session. Where is the accountability in this? As is now the case with most of the parliamentary questions we submit to her, is it no longer her responsibility? She washes her hands of all responsibility in deflecting more than 45% of health related questions from the Opposition to the HSE as a further delaying mechanism. This is completely unacceptable. Will the Tánaiste clarify whether the Minister for Finance is procedurally obliged to attain the approval of the House in this matter? Has that approval been sought? Was it secured yesterday? How do matters stand in this regard?
I have no difficulty in allocating more time for questions on this issue. I am more than happy to answer any questions Deputies have. Subject to agreement, I am pleased to take questions for half an hour, if that is in order. I wish, however, to put matters in perspective. At the start of 2005, the former health boards announced an overspend of more than €200 million for the previous year and there was not a word about it in this House. We must put this issue in context.
To answer Deputy Kenny, the chief executive officer of the HSE is that body's Accounting Officer. It is right that those with responsibility for delivering services should also have responsibility for finances. We have seen through the health boards that it is not good management or practice that one group should be responsible for spending money and another charged with accounting for that to the Oireachtas. A good system has been put in place and I have total confidence in Professor Drumm and his team to deliver an effective health care system in line with the money the Oireachtas can make available in any one year.
I propose we amend the Order of Business to provide for 30 minutes of questions after the initial statements from the spokespersons for the Opposition parties and the Technical Group.
When was the Tánaiste first informed about this issue?
Some two weeks ago, at approximately the same time as the Minister for Finance. I can let Deputy Kenny know the date later; it was the week before last.
Was this the first time she was made aware of the matter?
During a meeting with Professor Drumm earlier that week, it appeared the revenue allocated equated to the revenue spent and that there was a surplus of €56 million on the capital side. A day or two later, it emerged this may not be the case. As we know, Government accounting is extraordinarily complicated and the exact picture will not emerge until the final accounts are signed off by the end of March. The Minister for Finance said yesterday it now seems some €56 million of capital funding may well have been spent as revenue. He felt obliged to inform the House of this and was right to do so.
Procedurally, must the Minister for Finance come back to the House for approval?
I will deal with this in greater detail later. If the position indicated by the Minister is confirmed at the end of March, we must come forward with a Supplementary Estimate for that amount.
Arising from the PPARS debacle last year, information I requested under the freedom of information legislation indicated that the Department of Finance, in the middle of last year, notified the Department of Health and Children that this practice must stop. If the Department of Finance was aware of it in respect of the PPARS fiasco in the middle of last year and notified the Department and Health and Children at that time that it must stop, how was this allowed to happen? The Department of Finance was well aware that capital moneys were being used for current expenditure.
That is not true.
The freedom of information data supplied to me indicates the Department of Finance gave an instruction — or, at least, a direction — to the Department of Health and Children that this practice must stop. I will produce that evidence for the Tánaiste.
We must clarify the proposal on the Order of Business. I take it from what the Tánaiste has said that the statements will be taken at 2.20 p.m. instead of 2.40 p.m., in other words, 20 minutes earlier than the original proposal, and that the time taken for questions shall be for a period not exceeding 30 minutes? Is that agreed?
There is a difficulty in that the first round of speakers on Second Stage of the Competition (Amendment) Bill 2005 will now have insufficient time. My understanding was that extra time for this matter would be provided without impinging on the debate on that Bill.
Question Time begins at 3.30 p.m. so the statements must commence at 2.20 p.m.
There are precedents whereby Question Time is often interrupted by Private Notice Questions and the like. I cannot see why Question Time cannot start 15 minutes later if that is so ordered.
Will the Tánaiste clarify whether the Government will agree to the Minister for Finance accompanying her in answering questions on this matter? In his end of year statement, the Minister boasted about an underspend on Government balances of €564 million on current spending. Yesterday, however, he confessed in a personal statement that €56 million had gone AWOL.
That is a matter for the statements. I must put the proposal regarding the Order of Business.
The Tánaiste has a particular responsibility in this matter but the Minister for Finance has responsibility to answer questions in the context of his personal statement. Perhaps it requires Inspector Clouseau or Hercule Poirot to discover what happened to the €56 million. The Minister for Finance has a critical role in this because he has oversight of Government spending.
I must put the proposal. I ask the Deputy to resume her seat.
We have received completely different figures for underspends and overspends on current and capital figures.
The Deputy is not in order.
Will the Tánaiste be accompanied by the Minister for Finance when she comes into the House to answer questions on this fiasco?
The Chair must put the proposal.
If this happened in Uganda, we would be worried about a banana republic. It has not happened here before and we are entitled to answers.
To ensure we are clear on what it is the vote entails, I suggest the Whips meet briefly. The Government Whip can present an amended Order of Business when we have agreed it. I am sure there will be no difficulty in reaching agreement.
I am pleased to accept Deputy Stagg's suggestion. When it is agreed, I will return and outline the new proposal.
Arising from the comments made yesterday in respect of random breath testing, the Tánaiste is aware that prior to Christmas, we were informed such testing is unconstitutional. Yesterday, however, the Taoiseach said it would now be deemed to be legal. There seems to be some confusion about the information given to the Joint Committee on Transport yesterday by the Garda Commissioner. Will it be necessary to introduce legislation to give effect to random breath testing, which the Taoiseach now says is legal? If so, when is that legislation likely to be produced?
The public and Members of this House were entirely bemused by yesterday's developments, where random breath testing is now apparently deemed consistent with the Constitution when, prior to Christmas, we were advised to the contrary. It begs the question whether it was necessary for the tragic carnage that has happened since Christmas to bring some urgency to the matter and to produce clarity of legal advice. It is an extraordinary development that on something so major we were advised to one effect prior to Christmas and to an entirely different effect when the matter was raised by Deputy Kenny yesterday.
A pattern appears to be arising in the Department of Transport whereby two Bills have been announced which are not on the programme for Government. This is even more bizarre because we were told there is a constitutional problem in regard to random breath testing, yet we heard the chairman of the transport committee saying on the radio this morning that there was no difficulty all along and the gardaí could have carried out what is being proposed. We must hear the actual legal evidence on the route the Government is proposing because other views have been expressed, supposedly on authoritative advice, yet we are now on a third strand of a course of action. The seriousness of the matter requires absolute clarity so the issue will not get bogged down in some court challenge and that there will be some effect on reducing or eliminating the carnage on our roads.
There will be a need for legislation. The Government is anxious to provide the Garda with all the powers required to deal with this matter. There were and are constitutional issues. However, there is a way to deal with the matter which the Attorney General has advised will be within the spirit of the Constitution. The Minister for Transport will bring forward legislation as quickly as possible. He will make further information available later on how that might happen.
It is a pity he did not deal with the matter seven years ago.
Is it not true that random breath testing may be implemented by the gardaí because it must await legislation?
There must be legal advice.
That is an entirely different story from the spin yesterday. We now learn that nothing has changed since before Christmas.
The advice of the Attorney General has changed.
The Chairman of the transport committee was misinformed. Given the Government's recent performance on legislation, when will the legislation be brought before the House?
The Attorney General has now advised the Minister for Transport that it will be possible to bring in a form of legislation to give this power to the Garda, but the legislation must be passed first. It is the Minister's wish to have this done before the summer of this year.
Why was it not done years ago? This is outrageous.
Will the Tánaiste clarify her Department and the Government's intent in regard to the Bill described once again as the nurses and midwives Bill, which in the previous legislative programme was entitled the nurses Bill, but previous to that it was known as the nurses and midwives Bill. I welcome the fuller title which is now restored. Will she confirm that the Bill, which has been promised since 2002, and expected to be published in 2006, will be published in the current year or during the lifetime of this Dáil?
I can confirm that the Bill will be published this year. While significant advances have been made in the legislation, the Department of Health and Children has a huge legislative agenda and clearly some issues have taken priority. The Bill will be published, as will the Medical Council legislation. In advance of the legislation, I have used the Irish Medicines Board legislation to give prescribing rights to nurses. It was intended it would await the nurses Bill but we have gone ahead in advance of it. The Bill will be published and, I hope, debated in the House this year.
Will the Tánaiste intervene with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to turn away from putting Kunle Eluhanla, his classmates and the people of Palmerstown through the ordeal and torture of another deportation attempt? I ask this in the context of the immigration and residency Bill. As it is her constituency, will the Tánaiste respond?
The legislation will be published this year. Whether it is mine or any other Member's constituency, the law must apply without fear or favour. I support the decision of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in this case.
What about humanitarian concerns?
I support the Minister in this case.
That is heartless.
Not in the circumstances.
More hints.
Is the Tánaiste aware that animals currently have more protection against malpractice by pharmacists than human beings and that this is a cause of great risk to patients who depend on pharmacists for medication? When will the pharmacy Bill be introduced in the House to bring about protection against malpractice by pharmacists?
The Deputy is grossly exaggerating the situation by trying to tell me that pharmacists are causing a danger to the public. I had a very good meeting with the Irish Pharmaceutical Union about that matter last week.
Will she meet the Irish Pharmaceutical Society which expressed its extreme concerns to her Department? It cited cases of pharmacists who should not be practising at the moment.
It is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
It is extraordinary if the Minister is not aware of it.
The Deputy should not exaggerate what is a very minor issue.
The matter should be dealt with as a matter of urgency, otherwise she will be facing another scandal.
It is a tiny number. I have agreed to meet the pharmaceutical union.
From next Wednesday, farmers who do not retain feed receipts from merchants will be liable to prosecution and a sentence of up to six months in jail. Given that no guidelines have been issued to farmers regarding its implementation, will the Tánaiste ensure the nitrates action plan legislation will be withdrawn? Where stands the land and conveyancing Bill?
The land and conveyancing Bill will be published this year.
Will the directive be withdrawn?
The Minister for Transport recently promised to establish a Dublin transport authority to deliver Transport 21. Having examined the list of promised legislation, there is no reference to a Bill that would provide for this. Will the Tánaiste inform us what is the title of the Bill which will establish a Dublin transport authority and when can we expect to see it?
After the Minister announced the Transport 21 strategy, he appointed the Dublin transport strategy group. I understand he will have the report from that group in a matter of weeks, after which the legislation will follow.
There is no reference to it in the list.
The legislative list published by the Government is what will definitely happen.
Therefore, it may not happen.
Other legislation which is not on the list will also be worked on, such as the random breath testing legislation.
Given the urgency of putting in place proper public transport in the Dublin area, is it likely that this year a Dublin transport authority will be established, or when is it likely to be established?
The Minister for Transport says it is definite. The Deputy will be aware that only Bills of which the Government has cleared the heads are put on the list.
There are other lists.
Has the Tánaiste taken the opportunity to congratulate her colleague, the President elect of Chile, who is the first woman President in Latin America?
A question on the Order of Business.
It applies to promised legislation because she explained that some of her popularity was due to the fact that she was able to do away with hospital waiting lists in three months. In congratulating her, the Tánaiste might ask for some advice in that regard.
Can I ask about promised legislation, which is a related matter? We have heard much debate about the health repayment scheme Bill which, a year after the court case, is up for publication. Has the Tánaiste been in communication verbally and in writing with the Minister for Education and Science in regard to the Regina Coeli and Morning Star mother and baby unit? That issue is still unresolved. The Tánaiste said her Department funded the hostel and, therefore, it should come under the redress qualification provisions.
The President-elect of Chile is a formidable woman. After her stint in the Department of Health she went on to become Minister for Defence. I wish her well.
Willie had better watch out.
I have not had the pleasure of meeting her.
(Interruptions).
She will become the sixth women head of state in the world which is fantastic. I am delighted that Ireland is leading the way in that regard.
The Minister for Education and Science and I have frequent discussions but the redress facility does not apply to hostels.
(Interruptions).
Legislation proceeds at a slow pace through the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. The single electricity market Bill appears on the new list while other Bills on the previous list do not appear on it. Will the Tánaiste indicate at what stage of preparation that Bill is at? Have the heads of it been cleared? When will it come before the House? Will it be this session, during the lifetime of the Government or after that?
It will be this year.
This year.
I am sure it will electrify the House when introduced.
Does the Tánaiste reckon that?
Yes.
The Tánaiste did not mention that it will be brought in by the Government though.
The prisons Bill, part of which deals with the sale and disposal of Mountjoy Prison, has been in the Seanad for the past 12 months or so. Does the Tánaiste intend to seek a portion of the land of that prison, as she was requested to do by a letter sent yesterday by the chief consultant at the Mater Hospital? The hospital is seeking a portion of the land of the prison. Does the Tánaiste intend to accede to that request? Will that matter be part and parcel of the proposals and provisions under that legislation?
That question is not in order.
That Bill is on Committee Stage in the Seanad. As a matter of interest, who is the chief consultant at the Mater Hospital? I did not know that such a person existed.
I understand Dr. Timothy Lynch is the chief——
——consultant.
Yes, that is my understanding.
It is news to me that there is such a person as a chief consultant.
The Tánaiste would know all about consultants.
I know Charlie Bird is the chief news reporter but I have not yet heard the title chief consultant.
The Tánaiste should read her correspondence.
Maybe the Deputy is speaking in advance of the talks that are taking place today.
Perhaps if the Tánaiste read her correspondence she would——
Perhaps I am out of touch.
The Tánaiste might find some €6 million. The Tánaiste might have received a report from the task force on sudden cardiac death. If she has, when can we expect that report to be published?
The report may have come into the Department of Health and Children but I have not seen it. I had a long discussion with the group chaired by Dr. Maurer. I expect to publish the report very soon. I am aware of what is in it and I have had a long discussion with the doctor in advance of submitting the final report. The final report is due to be submitted to the Department shortly.
Under legislation in terms of what it hoped would be in place, a 24 year old girl, Fiona Gallagher, has been in Mayo General Hospital since Friday. She urgently needs a neurology bed in UCHG. The consultant in Mayo General Hospital, Dr. Lavin, wants the girl to have such a bed. I have spoken to the neurologist who also wants this to happen.
The Deputy can raise this matter in another way.
There is no neurology bed available.
It is not appropriate to raise this matter on the Order of Business.
Under legislation, the Tánaiste has said that despite beds not being available she could make some arrangements. I would like her to make an arrangement to accommodate this girl because she has already suffered damage from, and continues to have, epilepsy. She needs a neurology bed but it is not available.
The Deputy can pursue this matter by raising it on the Adjournment.
I ask the Tánaiste to do something for this girl who is in Mayo General Hospital since Friday and urgently needs a neurology bed.
The Deputy can pursue this matter by raising it on the Adjournment but it is not in order on the Order of Business.
I understand that Deputy Michael Higgins will seek leave to introduce a Private Members' Bill, the Twenty-eight Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2006 — First Stage.
I had hoped that the Tánaiste would respond to the needs of this girl.
If the Deputy contacts my office, I will respond to him.
I will do that.
I am not in a position to respond here.